How homeopathy is being maligned despite results.

[Guest guest]

The battle between big pharmaceuticals and Homoeopathy

by Clive Stuart

[From misc.health.alternative originally posted by chiongguo@...]

This article was originally printed in Investigate magazine.

For India_dev group, this is being posted as it points out the benefits of

homeopathy in treating ADHD.

In August 2005 the medical journal " The Lancet " published a

study suggesting that any positive effects from Homeopathic treatment

were due to a placebo response, in other words a person gets better

because they believe in the medication or the practitioner or both. The

study was a meta-analysis. This type of study is a comparison of many

clinical trials carried out in the past. An editorial in the same

journal titled " The end of Homeopathy " advised Doctors to be " bold and

honest " with their patients about Homeopathy's lack of benefit. Strong

stuff indeed, especially as the last major meta-analysis of Homeopathy

published in the same journal in 1997 concluded that the positive

effects of Homeopathy were not down to the placebo effect. Why then the

mad rush to declare the end of a system of medicine that has shown it's

efficacy in many high quality studies?

Homeopathy has been around for a couple of hundred years.

Widely used in America and Europe in the 1800's, it has enjoyed a

spectacular resurgence in the last twenty to thirty years. In the UK

where it is recognised by Act of Parliament there are a total of four

Homeopathic hospitals. In India it is practised almost as widely as

conventional medicine. Studies have shown it to work equally well for

animals with many veterinarian surgeons using it for their patients.

One of the reasons for it's popularity is that it is a very safe

form of treatment. This is due to the fact that the remedies used are

highly dilute and thus free of any toxic side effects. It has been

postulated that Homeopathic remedies stimulate the body's homeostatic

or self-balancing mechanism. The choice of Homeopathic remedy is based

on a totality of the patients symptoms including mental and physical

symptoms. The philosophy is very different to the reductionist approach

of modern medicine where disease is generally reduced to one

dysfunctional organ or system.

Little research has been carried out to explain just how

homeopathy works but it's efficacy is well documented. This is borne

out by many high quality studies published in peer reviewed medical

journals showing the positive effects of Homeopathy above and beyond

those of placebo. Just one month before the negative Lancet paper was

published a study appeared in the " European Journal of Paediatrics "

giving scientific evidence that Homeopathy was effective in the

treatment of ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). Should

Doctors not be " bold and honest " with their patients about this fact ?

As Homeopaths we see our patients with ADHD respond well to Homeopathic

treatment but our anecdotal evidence means nothing to conventional

practitioners without scientific fact to back it up. That scientific

fact is now available in this latest study. Doctors therefore owe it to

their patients to acquaint themselves with the ADHD research and

recommend Homeopathy as a safe and effective alternative to amphetamine

based drugs such as Ritalin. One month before the ADHD research a

German comparative cohort study of 493 people was published in

" Complementary Therapies in Medicine " . The aims of this study were to

evaluate the effectiveness of Homeopathy versus conventional treatment

in routine care. The study concluded that patients on Homeopathic

treatment had a better outcome overall compared with patients on

conventional treatment. With this in mind why then did the editor of

the Lancet Dr. Horton lock on to one negative study among many

positive ones to launch a highly vehement attack on Homeopathy? Surely

a balanced statement calling for more research into Homeopathy would

have been more in keeping with good science.

Horton is well known for his opposition to Homeopathy as is one

of the principal authors of the paper Prof. Matthias Egger. Egger

stated at the outset that he did not expect to find any difference

between Homeopathy and placebo. It now appears that he found what he

wanted to find. As scientists from around the world dissected the study

more disturbing facts came to light. Only 8 out of the 110 studies on

Homeopathy were used. The authors admitted that many of the 110 studies

showed positive results for Homeopathy, yet these studies were thrown

out after the authors had decided they were " lower quality " . Respected

scientists subsequently branded the paper " junk science " saying it was

deeply flawed and biased but by now Horton and Eggers hatchet job on

Homeopathy was beginning to bear fruit. News media around the world

were awash with " Homeopathy no better than dummy pills " , all the while

fuelled by journalists of a sceptical bent who were keen to offer

misplaced reverence to the Lancet study. Unfortunately the rebuttals

and rebukes of the study by those in the scientific community never got

the same publicity as the Lancet soundbites. These critiques included

letters to the Lancet itself that were rejected for publication.

Medical doctors who had objections to the methodology used in the study

asked for the identification of the eight trials used in the final

analysis but the authors explicitly refused. Added to this was the fact

that the journal had recently refused to publish a large UK study which

showed high levels of effectiveness for Homeopathy andyou have all the

transparency of a brick.

One has to wonder if there was some agenda behind all of this.

Could pharmaceutical companies have had some influence ? It would

hardly be a surprise as these companies are losing huge chunks of

market share to Homeopathy and Complementary medicine in general. Then

again it could just be actions borne out of sheer frustration at the

success of Homeopathy, frustration that will no doubt be enhanced by

the recent 6 year study from the Bristol Homeopathic Hospital in the

UK. This was the study that the Lancet would not publish. 6,500

patients took part in the study which was published in the peer

reviewed JACM (Journal of Alternative and Complementary medicine). 70%

of patients with chronic diseases such as arthritis, asthma, chronic

fatigue syndrome and severe eczema reported that Homeopathy had a

positive effect on their symptoms. This figure rose to 89% for young

asthma patients who experienced an improvement in their symptoms.

Overall 75% of patients reported feeling " better " or " much better " .

Although this was an observational study and not a double blind trial

it is of great importance in showing the effectiveness of Homeopathy.

It can also be said that conventional medicine would be greatly pleased

with outcomes similar to these.

Sceptics have always used the argument that Homeopathy can

only work by placebo because the remedies are too dilute to have any

physical effect. If there was any credence to that argument then the

patients in the Bristol study must have been on " extra strength "

placebo because of the sheer volume of positive results. Certainly

ultra-dilutions have been a major stumbling block for Homeopathy being

accepted by conventional scientists despite there being research

suggesting the contrary. One such scientist was Prof. Madeline Ennis, a

pharmacologist at Queen's University Belfast and an avowed sceptic of

Homeopathy. She published a paper that was based on a high quality and

groundbreaking study that tested ultra-dilute solutions of histamine

and it's effects on certain types of white blood cells called

basophils. When the histamine was diluted to homeopathic levels and

past the point where any molecules of histamine could remain, the

ultra-dilutions still had an effect on the basophils. The results were

replicated in 3 other laboratories across Europe and published in the

respected " Inflammation Research " (vol 53, p181). Ennis would have to

concede that she had failed to disprove Homeopathy. She said in her

paper " We are unable to explain our findings and are reporting them to

encourage others to investigate this phenomenon " .

Ennis is to be commended for her integrity in publishing

findings that were difficult for both her and science to accept and

explain. Others in the same field could learn from her example and

remove themselves from the comfort zone of accepted scientific fact to

embrace new possibilities.

As stated previously the bulk of clinical research shows the

placebo argument to be an erroneous one. To the research can be added

the fact that Homeopathy has been shown to be effective for babies and

animals. Here the chances for " power of suggestion " would seem remote.

For animals to be susceptible to the placebo effect, their vets would

need to develop the same powers of communication as Doctor Doolittle.

As Homeopaths we see many patients who have come to us after not having

had improvement from other medical treatments. If these people were

susceptible to the placebo effect, why then did it not happen with the

other treatments ? I have been a Registered Homeopath in full time

practice for 10 years in the UK and New Zealand. Nearly all of my work

comes from referrals. This is because people recommend what has worked

for them personally. If the opposite were true, Homeopathy would have

died a death a long time ago.

The public needs to be made aware when bias and selective research are

fed to them under the guise of medical science. Homeopathy does not

fear scientific scrutiny and evaluation as long as it is carried out

ona level playing field with truth and integrity. I have much respect

for modern medicine but it is by no means the only way to restore the

sick to health. We all need to work together for the good of the

patient. Doctors, Osteopaths, Homeopaths, Acupuncturists etc. all have

their place and need to work with each other as parts of a cohesive

whole. Divisiveness and one-upmanship have no place in healthcare.

Clive Stuart is a Registered Homoeopath in Tauranga, New Zealand

" Our ideal is not the spirituality that withdraws from life but the conquest

of life by the power of the spirit. " - Aurobindo.

---------------------------------

How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.